EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 21, 1996

.1104

[English]

The Chairman: I will start the meeting. Welcome.

Today we're going to review Parks Canada at length.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Before we begin our deliberations, I would like to check a rule of procedure with you, so as to clarify certain matters and enable us to work effectively together.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Leroux: This concerns my Liberal colleagues, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary. When we ask questions to witnesses, I believe that it is the Chair who decides whether they are in order or not. However, I noticed at the last meeting that my colleagues opposite, and particularly Mr. Arseneault, commented on the quality of our questions or the answer of the witnesses. I believe that this is not the normal procedure, is it?

I would just like it to be clear that such decisions are taken by the Chair, and that neither we nor the witnesses should be called to order by other members of the committee. I just wanted to make that clear.

.1105

The Chairman: I think that all of us here want the committee to work smoothly. I don't normally take offence for that type of thing, and I would just like things to works as well as possible. We shall now hear the minister. Can we postpone the discussion of this issue until later?

Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): I would just like to point out that I intervened during the last meeting simply because I wanted to help the member, as I know he likes clear and precise answers. I wanted to ask him to put any questions dealing with policy to those people who could answer on behalf of the minister.

The Chairman: I think we are all in agreement. In any event, we will leave it at that for the moment. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider in detail all the programs of Parks Canada, and its future activities and plans.

[English]

We're very fortunate to have the deputy minister, Mr. Thomas Lee, here today.

I appreciate your making yourself so readily available, Mr. Lee. I'm going to leave the meeting to you. As I said to you, we have time, so be as detailed as you can or as you want. We who don't know the workings of Parks Canada in as much detail as you do are very anxious to know about the heritage programs and what is going to happen to the parks in the future, etc. So feel very free and take your time.

Mr. Thomas Lee (Assistant Deputy Minister, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It may be a little bit dangerous to ask me to talk freely about my favourite subject. I'm not too sure just when I might end, but I will be under your guidance, Mr. Chairman.

You should have a presentation deck, which I basically will take you through in order. I hope you all have it. We also provided you a printed document entitled Parks Canada's Mandate for Change, which basically describes the direction we're going in. This document was made available to all of the employees in the department immediately following the budget to update them on the changes that were taking place.

With those introductory remarks, I would open my presentation with the deck, beginning with the page entitled ``Context - Parks Canada's Departmental Role''. The mandate of Parks Canada is a longstanding one. It's a mandate that has not been changed as a result of changes in department, changes in budgets, changes in organization and so on.

The fundamental mandate derives directly from legislation. The legislation indicates we are to provide, for the use and enjoyment of Canadians, a system of national parks, national historic sites and related protected areas and to manage these in a manner that leaves them unimpaired for future generations.

If you know and have followed Parks Canada over the years, you will know that mandate contains certain challenges, certain contradictions: the contradiction of conservation versus use. We are regularly challenged to both continue to provide services and at the same time do so in a manner that does not damage these places. But these are not contradictory objectives; they're complementary. The challenge is to do it right and do it together.

Within the Department of Canadian Heritage, we contribute to the departmental goal of first of all enhancing pride in Canada, and I'll return in the presentation to the importance and significance of national parks and national historic sites in this context.

Second, we ensure access to Canadian voices and Canadian places. Clearly Canadian places are national parks and historic sites, but I also like to think of our national parks and historic sites as part of the Canadian voices. Whether you think about Prince Edward Island National Park and Stompin' Tom Connors, or you think of Grasslands National Park and the novels of W.O. Mitchell, or you think of Haida Gwaii and Gwaii Haanas and you think of the art and the culture and the voices of the Haida people - these places are part of the voices of Canada, as well as being the special places of Canada.

.1110

Our work involves part of the department's objectives of protecting Canada's heritage. National parks and national historic sites are part of that, but within the department we also have other activities that were described to you relating to assistance to museums or work in conservation labs that are carried out in other parts of the department.

Finally, we contribute in a major way to Canada's economy and its growth and prosperity through tourism.

In terms of the shape and size of the portfolio we manage, there are some 750 national historic sites in Canada; 129 of these are administered by Parks Canada, and that includes seven national historic canals located in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes.

We also contribute to about 50 cost-sharing agreements on national historic sites. These are basically what I would call start-up arrangements for new national historic sites that we do not manage but would support the establishment of. We provide a short-term - perhaps a maximum three-year - financial assistance, and help an organization, a community or a manager to set up a long-term operation.

There are currently 36 national parks and reserves, and we have responsibilities to continue to expand the national park system. There are three national marine conservation areas, which I would describe as a relatively ``youthful'' program, but it is - if you can think of it - the water or ocean equivalent to the land base that is included in national parks. Canada, with its extensive oceans and shorelines, contains along those shorelines some absolutely outstanding marine environments - beautiful places, places of great conservation value and great ecological significance. Over the long term, we will have established in Canada a system of national marine conservation areas that fundamentally parallel the land base of the national park system.

We also administer the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, under which protection is given to the old railway stations of Canada, the stations that were established many years ago as part of the building and operation of Canada's railways. We have, in the legislation, the authority to designate and see that those buildings that are deemed to be of heritage value remain in a heritage condition. We do not operate these but simply administer the legislation to ensure that they are not destroyed.

Within Canada, in the federal and provincial context, there is a set of Canadian heritage rivers. These rivers are selected by a board that represents the provinces and the federal government. It is a very interesting program in the sense that it doesn't have a formal legislative base; i.e. becoming a heritage river does not involve a legislative action by the federal government or necessarily by the provincial government. It is a mechanism under which governments can cooperate and say that within Canada there are rivers, whether they be for example the Mattawa River in Ontario, part of the voyageur route, one of the great rivers of the north, or rivers in rural areas such as the Grand River in southern Ontario.... What this does is allow the designation and recognition of these rivers without any major complications in terms of legislative arrangements or any major financial relationships. Every person who comes into the program has to abide by the spirit of the program and basically carry out their own activities.

.1115

Parks Canada is also Canada's lead agency for the UNESCO's World Heritage Conventions. Within Canada there are currently 13 sites designated and one under negotiation - a very interesting paleontological site in Quebec, the Miguasha. Just recently, a month or so ago, we were successful in having Lunenburg designated as a world heritage site. It's the first town, city or village in North America to be recognized within the context of the world's historic villages. This was a very, very fine achievement for Canada, because there are many people who believe that only the cities and villages of Europe are historic, but we finally got on the map and we're very proud of it.

The other site that was designated was Waterton Lakes on the Alberta-U.S. border. It was designated in conjunction with the adjacent national park in the United States, so the American Glacier National Park and Canadian Waterton National Park were designated together as being one of the great natural places in the world.

Parks Canada is also the state member for the World Conservation Union. The World Conservation Union is an amalgamation of some 68 sovereign states, over 100 government agencies and over 640 non-governmental organizations around the world, whose primary purpose and interest is sustainable development, conservation, and wise use of resources. This is a very interesting international forum at which Parks Canada represents the federal government and the Canadian interest.

Parks Canada administers some 2% of Canada's land mass. Other than the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it is the largest federal land manager. We are everywhere, from Cape Spear on the east coast to Kluane National Park Reserve on the west coast; from Ellesmere Island, the very northern tip of Canada, to Point Pelee in southern Ontario, the southernmost part of Canada. As indicated, we basically operate in close to 180 different places across Canada and are well placed with regard to being able to talk about Canada in all its dimensions - big and small, ocean to ocean.

We're located in all territories and in all provinces. We have a very large asset base that represents the facilities that have been developed for visitors in our parks or in historic sites, and not just the facilities but the heritage investments that have been taking place. Whether you're talking about the fortifications of Quebec City or the Halifax forts or a totem pole on the Gwaii Haanas, these assets have a replacement value in excess of $6 billion. And of course one of our major challenges is to make sure that asset base does not diminish in quality or quantity over time.

We have currently in the neighbourhood of 4,000 full-time equivalent person-years in terms of employment, and the number of people visiting parks is currently running at about 26 million per year.

.1120

The parks make a major contribution to the Canadian economy. In excess of $2 billion accrues annually in benefits to the economy from the Parks Canada program, and some $275 million - actually, I believe that figure is low - comes from foreign visitors. I haven't had that figure updated. Very likely it's more than that.

That's kind of who we are. That's what we are and where we are.

What are the types of priorities and challenges that we face at this particular time and the relationship to the agenda that is being carried out for Canadians? I'm going to highlight seven areas, priorities or challenges, and then return to those in some detail.

First, is the government's intention - and, really, the commitment across Canada by governments, provincial and federal - to continue to strive to represent some 12% of Canada's land area in national parks and related conservation areas? On our part, that involves a government commitment to work toward the completion of the national parks system by the year 2000, and at the same time to continue the enhancement of the national historic sites system. That's challenge number one.

Challenge number two is tourism, to contribute to vibrant and sustainable tourism in Canada. We do that primarily through participation with the recently established Canadian Tourism Commission. I'll return to that subject.

The third area is the relationship and significance of these places to Canadians in every province and the relationship to the feelings people have about their nation, their communities, their places. Clearly we, like all parts of government, are involved in deficit reduction. For Parks Canada, for the four years between 1994-95 and 1998-99, that will involve a reduction of about 24%, or $98 million, in our appropriations.

Of course that will necessitate some staff reductions. Two program reviews have been conducted. Program review one, which was initiated this year and already is under way, involves some 430 full-time equivalent, or 600 individual, people. For program review two, some 1,100 full-time people, or 1,500 to 2,000 positions, are involved in the change. These are not lay-offs; these are not putting people on the streets. I'll return to that in a moment. This is moving to a different and more efficient way of carrying out our day-to-day activities.

On the environmental side of Parks Canada, within the Department of Canadian Heritage we carry out the greening of government programs. So we are responsible within the department to try to achieve efficiencies and prevent waste, whether it be paper or gas, from one end to the other.

Finally, Parks Canada is deeply implicated in what might be described as better government: trying to get better government, trying to get it right. The other day we talked about the agency legislation that will be coming forth that is part of that, but it also relates very much to the way in which we have structured and restructured our accounting and investment system so that we have a business plan that can carry out these reductions and at the same time respond to these challenges.

Picking up on each of those in order, I will begin with new national parks and sites. There is a map in your document that describes the natural regions of Canada. That map shows you the way in which we go about establishing national parks. Canada is divided up into a number of natural regions. To put those in simple terms, one could say that the boreal forest in northern Ontario is one natural region and it's clearly distinct from the west coast rain forest, which is another different type of environment and very distinct from the north end of Baffin Island, which is another ecological system.

.1125

Basically, Canada is divided up under that arrangement. Then the objective is to have all those natural regions of Canada represented. There are 39 of them, of which 22 are already represented. The objective we've been given is to try to achieve representation of the remaining natural regions, 17, by the year 2000. So that's what we're working toward.

The status of our work on that is as follows. Gulf Islands, in agreement with British Columbia, was announced in July of last year, and we are currently acquiring lands for this new national park.

Churchill, Manitoba, which is right at Churchill and south of Churchill, is the second item noted. We have been involved in very extensive negotiations, and I'm pleased to report to the committee that for all intents and purposes I believe those negotiations are concluded. They're not signed off yet, but I can say with some confidence I believe we're very close to concluding an agreement.

Tuktut Nogait, which is Inuktitut for ``Baby Caribou'', is located on your map. It's called ``Bluenose'' on your map. It's on the Arctic Circle. It is the home of the Bluenose caribou herd, one of the largest caribou herds in Canada. Last year we announced the withdrawal of the lands for that park. The withdrawal of the lands means the lands cannot be used for other commercial or industrial purposes and therefore are heading into a park status.

The completion of that park requires three negotiations. The western half of the park is Inuvialuit territory and requires negotiation with the Inuvialuit people. The eastern half of the park is eastern arctic Inuit, and that portion requires a negotiation with the Inuit people. The southern half of the park is Denesutine, and it requires negotiation with that group of people.

We are in a very advanced stage of negotiation with the Inuvialuit people. In fact, we're at the legal drafting stage at this time. We are in the process of completing community surveys with the Inuit to determine if they are now ready to proceed with the establishment of a national park on the portion that lies within their claim area. The southern part of the park, which is the Denesutine group, are not yet ready to commence negotiations.

So this park will come into place, I believe. It will come into place in three stages. I believe we will conclude negotiations with the Inuvialuit in the coming year.

For North Baffin Island the lands have already been withdrawn. I will return to that item, because it's part of a separate group of negotiations.

Wager Bay is on the northwest part of Hudson Bay. I'm sad to hear your member from that area is not here. I was in the communities of Rankin Inlet and Repulse Bay, and involved in negotiations with the communities there. We are at the community consultation stage in Wager Bay. Eight different communities are involved in the discussion. We are awaiting direction from them. They have not yet decided whether they would like to have a park or not.

.1130

We have a number of feasibility studies in progress. We have been carrying out research and discussions on the Manitoba lowlands over the course of the past year. Manitoba and the federal government about a month ago announced that they now had a proposal for a national park that both the federal and provincial governments could agree upon. That proposal is now out in the public for public discussion and review. If the public review is positive - we expect it will be - then we will commence negotiation for the establishment of an a new national park in the Manitoba lowlands lying between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis. Those negotiations could commence as early as the next few months.

On Bathurst Island, the very north central part of the Arctic - it's actually north pole country if you're carrying a compass - we have a request by the Inuit people to commence discussions to establish a new national park on Bathurst Island.

In the northern part of Labrador, community discussions have been completed with regard to the establishment of a new national park. In those discussions, the province, the federal government and the Labrador Inuit have agreed upon a proposal that would be taken to the Government of Newfoundland with a request to proceed with the establishment of a new national park in northern Labrador.

In southern Labrador, there is a proposal. It's called the Mealy Mountains proposal, which has been on hold for some time at the request of the Labrador Innu people. As recently as the last couple of months, we have received a written request from the Labrador Innu to commence discussions with regard to a new national park in the area known as the Mealy Mountains. We have not yet reacted to that request, but we have been awaiting that request and we'll be responding shortly.

In south central British Columbia, in the Chilcotin country, we have a proposal that we refer to as the Churn Creek proposal. We have completed all our reviews on that. The provincial government in its own land use decision-making framework has withdrawn lands for park purposes in the area of our interest. So the lands are withdrawn. However, at this point in time neither the Province of British Columbia nor the local communities have indicated an interest in negotiating an agreement for a national park. The work we have done has led to the reservation of the lands, albeit under a provincial system.

Finally, at East Arm on Great Slave Lake we have a reserve established that will stay as a reserve. No work is taking place on that at this point in time because that area is also the subject of land claim negotiations. Until those negotiations commence, we are not in a position to do further work on a national park in the area.

[Translation]

We are not involved in Quebec for the moment.

[English]

We are doing some professional work and dialogue with our colleagues with regard to some of the common interests we share in northern Quebec, but nothing active. Our focus in Quebec at this point in time is on the national marine parks and the national historic sites, and we'll pick those up as we go on.

I note on the last page, in ``New Parks and Sites'', that we are currently involved in a set of negotiations that involve Auyuittuq National Park on southern Baffin Island, which already exists as a reserve, Ellesmere Island, which already exists as a reserve, and north Baffin Island, which is a reserve. The agreements for those were established some years ago, but they were subject to land claim negotiations, which have now been completed: the Nunavut agreements. As part of the Nunavut agreements, we are required to negotiate what are called Inuit impact and benefit of agreement for these three areas. Our objective is to conclude those in the coming year.

.1135

Let me simply say that we're very excited about the work that is going on. This will not happen in July. There's a lot of work, a lot of patience, and a lot of common sense and cooperation involved in establishing a national park. It's best if it's done that way. Sometimes you can rush in and do a quick job, but you usually pay for it for a long time. These are done right; they are done in a sensible way, and it's very exciting to be involved.

I mentioned the national marine conservation areas program as the junior generation of tomorrow that involves marine areas rather than land areas. In the past year we released the national marine conservation area system plan. There is a map in your book and there's also a very interesting publication that describes this, which I would make available to any of your members. It's very exciting reading about the oceans of Canada and the special places they have. I would be prepared to provide that document. So that was an achievement in the past year. That was announced and issued to the public in July 1995.

As indicated, we have an agreement in British Columbia called the Pacific marine heritage agreement. That agreement will lead to the creation of a new national park plus up to two new national marine conservation areas in British Columbia. We are just commencing the studies on one of those at this point in time.

In Quebec, we are at a very advanced stage in the Saguenay Marine Park area. A management plan was announced and agreed upon and the federal and provincial governments are now at the stage of drafting legislation. We're working on that now. As I indicated to you at our last meeting, I doubt very much that this legislation will be completed and available this spring, but an autumn objective would be reasonable at this stage, as I see it.

On the west coast we have the Gwaii Haanas as part of the land base. We also have a national marine conservation area. We have reached agreement with the Province of British Columbia on the boundaries of that. We have not yet taken action to establish it because there are oil and gas rights involved and we're working with the three companies that are involved to determine whether they would release those rights. I can tell your committee that I believe we will be successful, that the companies involved will release the commercial rights they have within that area and that we will then be able to proceed to establish a Gwaii Haanas national marine conservation area.

We are doing work in two other places: the north shore of Lake Superior, which involves study and professional work with the people in the province of Ontario; and the Bonavista Bay area of Newfoundland.

While we work toward the completion of the national parks system and the expansion of the national marine parks system, we also have the responsibility to continue our investment in the national historic places of Canada. We also go about this in a systematic way. The system involves identifying the priority themes that form part of our Canadian culture, heritage, and history, and then looking at the historical dimensions of those and determining if we have historic areas that need recognition within the system at the national level.

.1140

When we look at the historic sites of Canada, there's a block of themes that are very well covered. As a matter of fact, if you look at the early.... Much of the foundation of the historic sites system is based on the themes of government and war in Canada: the forts, the military establishment, the ramparts, the government buildings, and so on. But there is a very strong narrow focus, if you like, on Canadian history. I hope Canadian history is about more than government and war.

So there is a whole set of themes that are outlined - priority theme areas such as settlement patterns, industrial manufacturing, fisheries, mining, energy, culture, cultural landscape, women's history, aboriginal peoples, and culture communities. As we're moving into the next generation of historic sites, we're looking at those themes to give recognition to those important people and places in Canada that represent those elements of our history.

So we are working in seven priority theme areas, settlement patterns. Just a little over a year ago we acquired and now we are working toward the establishment of the Manoir Papineau, a national historic site. On industrial manufacturing themes, we have already invested in the Vielle Pulperie, at Quebec, and are working on a cost-sharing agreement on the west coast of Vancouver Island, in the Port Alberni area, called the McLean Mill. On fisheries history, we are working and already proceeding in three areas: the Gulf of Georgia cannery, in British Columbia; the Ryan premises on the Bonavista Peninsula in Newfoundland; and Red Bay, on the south shore of Labrador, on the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

About the immigration themes -

The Chairman: Could I interrupt you for a minute? I just want to get a sense of the members. I thought we would leave an hour for questions, but maybe members feel we should leave more time. So I would like to get the feeling of members on whether they want you to continue in detail until the end of your document or whether they would prefer to leave more time for questions and if we have time left, go back. I just want to get the feeling of the members.

Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman, because otherwise we'll be asking questions about areas he might have explained in his discussion. I'm new on the committee and I just have knowledge of this as a Canadian, but I'm quite fascinated by all of this and I would like him to continue.

Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, in my case questions seem to generate information that perhaps might be more valuable. I've had a chance to go through the presentation already and most members, I suspect, can garner much of the information that is being conveyed verbally by reading the presentation we've been given. I suspect there might be a greater benefit to being able to ask questions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, do you want Mr. Lee to continue or to move on to questions? The committee decides on its own procedure. I really don't mind.

Mr. Leroux: I would not be against making the proceedings more dynamic and interactive through questions and answers. I would also like to move forward more quickly.

I would just say that Mr. Lee's presentation is very agreeable. I think we agree on the document. But we could... [Inaudible - Editor].

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, why don't we take another five minutes and you can summarize the rest of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: We could listen to the summary.

[English]

Mr. Lee: The brief speaks about the historic sites and some of the areas we're working on, so I won't go into detail with a description of each one of those. I'll move on to tourism.

About 33% of all tourism in Canada is involved in a group of activities called ``heritage tourism''. What we are trying to do within the department, as well as just Parks Canada, is to utilize that to the advantage of the Canadian people and the Canadian economy. Basically, we do that through cooperation with the Canadian Tourism Commission.

.1145

Within the past year we were very active in a domestic marketing program, which is best described as seeing if we can keep people in Canada and get them to stay and visit and spend their money here for a while. We were part of that promotion. So we're very much a part of the tourism sector. We regard ourselves not as marketers. The private sector is the marketers. We're the suppliers. So our job is to keep quality being supplied.

I alluded to the significance of national parks and national historic sites to Canadians. In terms of significance as national symbols, they are ranked just after the flag.

We have a number of activities that are taking place. Not everybody can get to these places, so we have to find a way to bring some of these places to the people who can't get to them. So there is a variety of activities in a variety of communication media to try to make that available.

In terms of the environment, clearly the Parks Canada agenda is very much a part of the federal agenda for the environment. The most significant happening this year will be the congress for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which will take place in Montreal in October and will bring perhaps as many as 3,000 people from around the world for a period of up to two weeks for the discussion of international conservation issues.

We've provided you with a fact sheet that basically shows that our appropriations will be declining quite dramatically. We are changing into a different mode in terms of revenue. We have obtained the right to reinvest that revenue into the operations of parks, so that is helping us to offset our budget.

I'd like to make a brief summary.

As we've been going through these changes, there are various perceptions about what may or may not be happening. First, I would like to indicate to the committee that, contrary to what has been reported variously as privatization, commercialization, or provincialization - all these words have been used - none of this is happening. These national parks and national historic sites are going to remain as part of the federal program and will be run and operated in the interest of Canadians, and we should be very confident that these places will be retained and will serve all of Canada.

The changes that are taking place are as follows: we're maintaining services at lower cost and reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer. The important thing here is that we had some choices to make about how we did that and we chose not to close sites. We're virtually not reducing the season in any place in Canada - we're keeping these places open - and we're not reducing services. So our challenge is to do what we have do at much less cost and to ensure that these places will continue to make their contribution to the Canadian economy.

Efficiency measures are basically achieved by a number of mechanisms. At this time the two primary ones are the reduction of those things that government does now that it doesn't have to do and that might be done better, more efficiently, more quickly, and at less cost to people, with a different way of doing things.

The second is the agency concept. Basically the concept of the agency is to reduce cumbersome organizational, financial, and administrative constraints so we can get on with the job.

Our fees are being updated, but no major changes will be taking place this year. The major changes took place last year. Basically the change, as it pertains to visitors, involved moving from what had been a traditional vehicle pass to a per-person pass, which is the more common way of charging for that service throughout all business activities today.

.1150

Finally, while we are facing the reduction of appropriations, we are, I hope I've demonstrated, continuing to ensure there are places provided for Canadians for tomorrow. The national parks and national historic sites for the people in the next century have to be created in this century, not at the end of it. So that work is still proceeding.

Mr. Chairman, that's a summary. I find it a very challenging program. It's very exciting, and I'm very pleased to be before your committee. Let's have some questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

We have seventy minutes left.

[Translation]

In accordance with previous arrangements, I shall give ten minutes to each party, beginning with the Official Opposition, and then moving on to the Reform Party,

[English]

and then the government party.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux, you have ten minutes you can share with your colleague if you so wish.

Mr. Leroux: My colleague will ask the questions.

Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Lee for his very good presentation. I believe that there is no doubt that Mr. Lee is a very good asset to the department, because he is dedicated to his work. He could have easily maintained our interest for another hour.

Given that you are so familiar with this area, I would like you to explain to me how you can say in your corporate plan that Parks Canada will be hit by a significant budget reduction and yet it will contribute two billion dollars to the Canadian economy, which you include in Canada's gross domestic product, 275 million dollars of which will come from foreign visitors.

This may be one of the most efficient government agencies in Canada since it generates revenue from its costs.

You have a business plan with a budget which will easily drop by about one third. At the same time you seem to believe that the number of visitors will not change. How can you explain that despite such a significant reduction, you will manage to maintain the same level of revenue?

[English]

Mr. Lee: Over the course of the reviews we've been conducting we have been getting out of some areas of activity that were costly but provided very little service to the public. So the first point is there are some things we have done in the past that we will not be doing any more, but essentially we've been able to do that without reducing visitor impact.

A good example would be a campground in which we had 1,000 campsites and were operating them all, keeping them all open. That gave a visitor lots of choices. They had 1,000 campsites to choose from, but there might only have been 500 people using the campsites. We will reduce our operating costs by managing the 500 sites rather than the 1,000 sites. There are various methods of doing that.

Second, as indicated in the program, for a variety of activities - and I refer to those types of services that are available throughout Canada in other forms, through the private sector or through the municipal sector - we will not be carrying out and managing those services in the future. Government is historically more expensive when you get into areas such as campground management, major maintenance activities and electrical services. To carry within our own organization all the overhead to have that service available on a continuous basis is more expensive than doing it through an alternate delivery system. So basically we will encourage our employees to move out into the private sector to provide that service both to the parks and to the communities.

Those are just some of the examples.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: Thank you.

I understand that if the department privatizes its services, there will be fewer demands on its budget. But at the same time, these 2000 employees will perhaps provide services to the people using and visiting the parks. So why would you say that the services will be provided at a lower cost? Will the private sector be able to provide services in the parks which come under Parks Canada at a lower cost than you can do at present?

[English]

Mr. Lee: The answer is yes, they will be provided at lower cost. There are three reasons for that.

.1155

One, we will not have to carry the overhead that goes to, for example, supervising those employees as we do now. We have organizational structures that are built to supervise people. If we can reduce that overhead then that will reduce our costs.

Second, government processes are expensive in terms of approvals to purchase and get things done. Those expenses would be reduced as we move ahead.

As I indicated, we had a number of ways to go about reducing costs. We chose two important directions. One, as I indicated, is to try to do something that won't reduce services to the public and will continue to maintain the economies of these local places, and the second is not to do something that will result in our employees being out of work or out on the street.

We did not simply say the private sector can do this cheaper, therefore we're contracting everything to the private sector, or we can't afford it, so we're going to close these places down. What we said to our employees is ``We would like you to look at the opportunities you might have to become your own employer, and in return we will enter into an agreement with you to provide the service''.

If it ends up, as in some cases it could, that for some reason it would be less expensive for government to do it, then clearly we would continue to do it. But if it is costing the Canadian taxpayer more, we would try in every case to do it cheaper.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Lee, I can understand that the cost of using people from the private sector will be lower since the government's overheads would drop. However, how can you argue that you are going to continue your development plans when your sources of funding... You cannot claim that you can implement your development plans at a lower cost. Development means basic investment. How can you project so many development plans, when your funding has been reduced? Would it not be more efficient to maintain the facilities that you already have and improve them rather than embarking on new projects?

[English]

Mr. Lee: On that, sir, we have the reductions and appropriations, but we have reduced the impact of that by changing the revenue system. You'll note in the financial projections that the revenues will increase from a base of $35 million to roughly $70 million. That money goes back into the park. The $98 million reduction is netted down from the increase in revenues, so the overall reduction is $63 million.

Again, how are we doing it? We are reducing cost, we are getting more revenues and we are reinvesting those revenues back into the sites and parks.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Mr. Lee, as regards the two components of the growth measures, there is a certain consistency. Could you provide me with a little more detail about the second aspect, that is the possibility of legislation to make Parks Canada an agency independent of the department?

The purpose of these measures is to reduce the number of financial and organizational constraints. Could you tell me a little more about current constraints and the benefits of becoming an independent agency?

I would also like to know if a time frame has been considered for the implementation of such legislation.

[English]

Mr. Lee: I'll deal with the last part first. The time line, as indicated in our earlier presentation, would be in the course of the coming year, but not in the spring. We are not in a position to introduce legislation in the spring session.

The nature of the agency I cannot provide you with any description of at this point in time. As you are aware, this was announced in the budget a couple of weeks ago. We are now in the process of carrying out government direction, which involves description of the agency and drafting of legislation. It will involve consultation as well. Exactly what form that might come out in is not available to committee at this time, but of course will come before the committee at legislation time.

.1200

The list of the constraints of working in the current system is long. I'll give you some descriptive ones.

Suppose you are a manager in Forillon and you need to get a contract and you need to get it quickly. You know what you want and you know who your local supplier is. It's the only supplier in town, so it's a sole source contract, which would make sense, but it's over $6,000. You can't do anything as a local manager. You have to start through a system of approvals to get somebody else who doesn't know what you're doing, sometimes someone thousands of miles away, to give you authority to spend $7,000 to do something that makes sense.

Another example is that we're buying land in the Bruce Peninsula. In the current system we work through government services to acquire land. They have the appraisal expertise, etc. We have people in the Bruce Peninsula. Government services doesn't have any people in the Bruce Peninsula. We have to get somebody from government services to help us acquire land in the Bruce Peninsula. Government services doesn't have anybody there and they don't have enough people to do this, so they go and hire the local appraiser in the Bruce Peninsula to get the appraisal. We could have done that in the first place.

I don't want to get into that too much, but what I'm saying is there is a much better way to do government and we know we can do it. We want to do it, and the agency will help us resolve those types of things.

The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I'd like to say I really support your having been elected to the position of chair. I worked with you on the environment committee and I appreciate that while you and I occasionally shared some pretty significant differences of opinion, I considered that your approach was always fair. I'm looking forward to that in this committee.

Just to put on the record where the Reform Party is coming from on this issue, we believe in the value of enterprise and initiative and that governments have a responsibility to foster and protect an environment in which initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals and groups. We also believe that the creation of wealth and productive jobs for Canadians is best achieved through the operations of a responsible, broad-based, free enterprise economy in which private property, freedom of contract, and the operations of free markets are encouraged and respected.

Therefore we see the direction the park is taking in terms of attempting to generate more of a free enterprise approach in the delivery of services. We think that direction is the correct direction to be going in, but there are some caveats that we need to throw in because this is the national parks system we're talking about, after all.

We support extensive consultations with employees and management working in the parks. We believe the employees are the real experts. They know the parks, they know their jobs, and they know where the level of service can be provided. They have valuable insight as to where the dollars can be saved.

Second, if we're going to achieve a real dollar savings in efficiency at the end of the day, we must see Parks' plan to streamline its management team. Our concern is that if the management functions are not rationalized and trimmed down to reflect the fact that there may be a fair amount of private enterprise involved here, we're going to end up with something like what we have over at the Department of Fisheries, where there's just about an employee for every fish caught. We don't want to see a repeat of the DFO in Parks.

Third, we want assurances that Parks Canada's new separate service agency to manage and preserve for future generations a system of national parks is not just another home for Liberal patronage appointments, like our Senate. In other words, we want to see a totally transparent process for the appointments, and we want a fair and open, transparent process worked out with employees when the transfer arrangements for private enterprise are put together. In other words, there has to be some discussion, because this will be a business. So there will have to be some degree of confidentiality, but we are concerned: there should not be anything that is hidden.

.1205

Fourth, we would like Parks to take a look at reviewing the possibility of relocating most of its staff to western Canada. Our rationale for that is very simple. At this point, of the 2,500 people who are delivering services at the park level, park wardens and staff, more than 1,500 are within about a thousand-mile radius, say, of Calgary. It strikes us that if we're talking about ``hands on'' and people having a full awareness of what's going on, plus lowering the cost of travel and communication, this would end up making sense.

We also believe that residents within the parks must be treated with fairness. There has to be a uniformity in leasing fees and property taxes throughout the parks in all the communities. Mr. Lee will know that we have had discussions with people in his department. I'm looking forward to meeting with Mr. Lee on this issue, because the whole issue of leasing fees is presently very much like patchwork, in our judgment.

We also have a concern about the fees being charged in our national parks, such that they continue to be affordable to families and competitive with the costs of provincial and private campgrounds. We're concerned about the potential of the fees intentionally being driven so high that we could end up with a situation in which people who want to return the parks to the wild animals - period - and really see more of an exclusion of people might be able to achieve that by getting the fees very much higher.

Finally, consideration must be given to existing businesses within the parks, because many of these businesses rely on customers who live outside the park boundaries. I think particularly of Radium, Banff, and Jasper.

I can quickly recite a situation in which I didn't want to buy a park pass for my car. As a consequence, I ended up going to a Subway, or whatever it was, before I got into Banff, to have my lunch. I thought that if I was the heritage critic, I really didn't want to get caught without a pass on my car while I was having lunch in Banff. So that has to be taken into account.

I'll come to the issue of the vehicle pass versus the per-person pass. Short of having people with brown shirts wandering around in the park demanding some form of identification or having people have something stamped on their forehead, how is this going to be accomplished? I see it as being a very serious problem. I'm not proposing a solution, at all, because I don't know what the solution is. How in the world are you going to administer that?

Mr. Lee: I'll respond as quickly as I can, Mr. Chairman.

First, I very much appreciate the member's support for the consultative process, particularly with employees. It is very clear that the people who know our business are in the parks; they're not in Ottawa or our regional offices. So we will be carrying out that consultation. I'm personally committed to it, and it is ongoing.

The changes, as you see, are quite dramatic. We are talking about major changes in Parks Canada in what we do and how we do it. But it has to be carried out. Those employees are loyal, and the significance they can have includes cost savings. They do know how to save costs. They have not necessarily had to in the past, but when they're challenged they can. So yes, we need all of that support and we'll be encouraging it.

.1210

The second issue is to streamline management. My response is that's where we're going. I won't point the finger just at Parks Canada, but organizationally we have in the past been able to afford some quite complex and heavy administrative organizations. That is going to be slimmed very dramatically, and it will be slimmed where it has to be slimmed.

Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to leave the relocation question as a statement of record of the party and the member. I'm not in a position to respond to that.

I would say one thing, and I think it is important. It has to do with the structural question. Parks Canada is already a very decentralized organization. We carry on some operations in Ottawa because we run a couple of conservation laboratories here, but of the 4,000 full-time people who work for us, there are only about 150 in Ottawa who constitute the agency's staff. We have it right at that end, or close to right. We could probably do better, but we're slimming and making the rest of the organization more efficient and getting the dollars and the decision-making to the people in the business who make the decisions at the site. We're letting them get on with their jobs.

The member and I will be meeting on the fee and the fee issues. Unless there is some demand that I respond, I think that would be better dealt with.... It's very complex. The member is correct in saying that there are some historic inequities, and that's what we're trying to straighten out.

I should respond to the affordable fees. This is profoundly important. We have handled this across Canada by three checks. One is consultation on fees, which is extensive. When we make fee decisions, we try to bring them in line with what the community really believes is reasonable. Going beyond that, we do offer specials for reductions for groups, large families, and local communities, where you can get an early bird if you're going to be using the park throughout the season. That's an important point.

The Chairman: I will now turn to the government side. Ms Phinney.

Ms Phinney: Mr. Lee, you seem very enthusiastic about this. Could you just give us a little bit about your background and whether you are personally involved in these things?

Mr. Lee: As with many people's careers, I landed where I am by accident; this was what they call plan B. I was educated at McMaster University and at the University of Illinois, where I did graduate work. At Illinois I specialized in conservation in my master's degree.

I joined the Ontario government as a park planner when I was a bright-eyed young student, when I had all my hair. I started my career in parks in Ontario, moved out west, and was head of British Columbia parks. I moved out of parks for about fifteen years and was assistant deputy minister of crown lands and assistant deputy minister of forests in British Columbia. Then I moved to the federal government as assistant deputy minister in federal forestry and then came to parks, back where I started, two years ago.

Ms Phinney: Thank you very much.

There's been a lot of controversy in recent years concerning overdevelopment in some of our parks, particularly Banff. How will Parks Canada or the new agency deal with the pressures of overdevelopment and increased tourism?

Mr. Lee: On the question of development versus conservation, I indicated that this is a balancing act and it's extremely important that we get it right.

.1215

A very interesting document for the committee to read is the document we tabled in Parliament last year called the State of the Parks Report. We have put in place a system whereby we're now able to report not just to ourselves, which is extremely important, but to the Canadian public about what is happening to the natural ecology in the parks and about which parks are okay and which ones are under some threat. It's the same thing with the cultural resources and the historic resources. Are there historic resources that we are in danger of losing if we don't do something? So we have a monitoring system in place.

The State of the Parks Report indicates we have two fundamental problems to deal with. One is ourselves, but I think that is mostly solved. We have some problem areas.

There's a very large threat to the parks from outside. A park boundary is something we just drew, but the elk don't know exactly where that line in the ground is, so they go back and forth. What happens outside the park is extremely important to what goes on inside the park. That applies to wildlife, to acid rain pollution and to a whole lot of what I would call neighbours. We need a good neighbour program, and we are working on it to make sure that happens.

Ms Phinney: Could we get copies of the State of the Parks Report?

Mr. Lee: Yes, I will have that provided.

The Chairman: So there are two sets of documents.

Mr. Lee: The other part is managing ourselves. On the whole - and the State of the Parks Report I believe would indicate this - we probably have ourselves under control. I think we do. Some of the mistakes we made in the past are no longer being made. I'm talking about the parks as a whole.

We have a history of conflict and issues in Banff, Alberta. We have established and are expecting a report in June from a special task force called the Banff-Bow Valley task force, which will report to us on how to properly take Banff and the Bow Valley into the next century in a way that meets community, conservation and commercial or tourism needs. In other words, it's a balancing act.

This is a very old issue, and this is by far the most thorough and comprehensive review that has ever been done on the Bow Valley-Banff area. As an optimist, I would like to feel that the work will produce a consensus and a vision for the valley that works and ensures conservation and its continued viability as a community and as a tourism centre. That's our hope.

Ms Phinney: I have a couple of other short questions.

You've said in here that Parks Canada administers 2% of Canada's land, and I think I heard you say you want this to get up to 12%. Is that correct?

Mr. Lee: No. In Canada two or three years ago there was a federal-provincial ministers agreement that involved the ministers of forests, parks, wildlife and environment and the federal ministers of the same. That agreement indicates the governments will cooperate to try to achieve 12% of Canada's land mass as protected areas. That's the spirit. In the federal Parliament at the time there was a three-party endorsement of that direction. That's the 12%.

Ms Phinney: So that doesn't necessarily mean you would be administrating it.

Mr. Lee: No.

Ms Phinney: You're saying in Canada as a whole, provincial and federal, it would be -

Mr. Lee: That's right. When we complete the national parks system, we believe our percentage will move from the current 2% to roughly 3%, something in that range.

Ms Phinney: Okay.

I just have one other question I think you could answer briefly. How does the process to create a park begin? You mentioned you have a request or you have been waiting for a request to set up a certain park and have been carrying on negotiations and research. How does the process start to get a park started and then what negotiations do you have to do after that?

.1220

Mr. Lee: I would describe that in two different contexts. If you take the Arctic, the north, the establishment of parks is very much part of the land claims settlement process. So we could go to an area and say we would like to establish a park and conduct a negotiation, and the local people would say they would like to do that too, but it is subject to the land claim. So you go ahead and you negotiate, make an agreement, and then afterwards settle the land claim issue. You have that type of thing. You could also have a community come back and say no, they don't want to negotiate now, they want to do it as part of the land claim negotiations; and basically that's been a very positive way of doing it: to do it together. That's fundamentally the north.

In the south you're really dealing with provincial governments. It's their resource. So there has to be some way of bringing the federal-provincial governments together and to say we would like to look at this. That can be done at the ministerial level or the officials level.

The other part of that is the role communities and non-governmental organizations play in the creation of a park. World Wildlife Fund, for example, and the Nature Conservancy of Canada are important organizations in Canada that promote and assist and encourage the establishment of national parks. In some cases they will take the lead and go to the provincial government or the federal government and say it's time we did something together here. So there's that type of method as well.

Finally, as I indicated, there is a community base. The community-based initiative would come from a community organization, a local government, business representatives, and so on.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Mr. Lee, thank you for your presentation.

I just would like to get clarification on the amount of land that would have park status. Is the goal 3% to be under federal control and 12% in total? You spoke to that, but I didn't get that.

Mr. Lee: Yes, that would be the simple way of putting it. When you think of 12%, you should think we, the people of Canada, would like to have 12% - we don't care who does it - we the people of Canada. The federal and provincial governments have said okay, we would like to, and we'll work together to do it.

Ultimately, the people haven't said it's important that 3% be federal and the rest provincial. When we look at what parks will contribute - just parks, not the federal government, because don't forget, there are also national wildlife areas, for example - when we look at the parks contribution, we say ours would approach 3%.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien, I'll come back to you later.

[Translation]

I shall move on to a second round of questions. I shall give five minutes to Mr. Leroux, if you wish, and then five minutes to Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Leroux: I have only one question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lee, the parks services to be privatized will end up being contracted out. You said that 1500 to 2000 employees will have the opportunity to bid on those services. Could you provide us with a document on the range of services you intend to contract out or privatize?

[English]

Mr. Lee: We will have that. Under the government policy - I'd like to indicate that this is not Parks Canada policy we're dealing with as we apply this, it's a government-wide policy - we are required, as the initial step in the process, to indicate to employees those types of activities and services that would generally fall within that. That's the first step. We're just in the process of taking that. I will be pleased to provide that to the committee when it becomes available. It's not available at this minute.

.1225

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: And the types of services considered, so that we can see the whole range of services.

[English]

Mr. Lee: That's right. Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: When do you think this document will be available?

[English]

Mr. Lee: The process we've established is that by the end of June we will have provided all employees with that information, along with a general description of how to make a business proposal. So if you were a group of employees that said they would like to operate this campground and asked what standards would be expected, we would have to provide that information to employees so they could make a proposal to us.

That will be available by June, but the very first step will be available before then. I can't tell you whether it will be in two weeks or a month, something in that period. That basically says that we will be prepared to consider these types of activities.

It is important to note that that is not the only way in which an employee can make an offer. They can bring one forth even if we didn't.... Suppose that I outlined a set of areas, such as ground maintenance, highway maintenance, electrical services, and so on, but I was an employee who didn't fall into that group but I thought I had a good idea anyway. They can come forth with their own proposal. We have people who have expressed interest in doing that.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: If I understand this correctly, the plan will be implemented gradually and negotiated for each site. Will the plan be implemented as a whole or gradually?

[English]

Mr. Lee: It will take place over three years. We have discussed this with the union and employees. We have indicated that we would like to do as much as we can in the first two years. The reason for that is it helps to eliminate unsettled.... It gets people established so they don't have to worry about where they are going to be.

It's in our mutual interest to move as quickly as possible, but it's also very important that we be very sensitive about this. These are employees; they are very dedicated and they have good ideas.

Also, they need time to put forth some of these ideas. Nobody told them yesterday that they might have an opportunity to be in the campground business on June 1. They need a chance to bring those ideas forth.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux: Thank you Mr. Lee.

[English]

Mr. Abbott: Ms Phinney brought up the issue of the Bow Valley study. I agree with you that in an ideal world it's going to solve the whole problem.

You may be aware of the fact that one survey says, for example, that the elk are declining, another says that the elk are increasing, another says that the moose are declining, and another puts the root of that problem in the fact that the parks employees decided to do controlled burns.

Mr. Lee: So you would like my job? Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Abbott: Oh, I'd love your job.

Recognizing that the environment doesn't stop just because somebody decided to paint a border or build a fence at the edge of the park, my understanding is that the Canmore council is very concerned. Canmore of course is immediately outside of Banff, where I had the infamous subway sandwich I was talking about. They are really quite concerned, because there is such a strong move to try to get them drawn into this Bow Valley study, where you have Canmore, Exshaw, and other surrounding areas.

What is the current situation on that? I think there is some apprehension about being drawn into what you just referred to, your job, the whole parks side of it.

Mr. Lee: I can't respond to the Canmore concern. I personally don't know what it is.

.1230

The general issue, inside-outside, strikes me as follows. First, it is very clear that the Banff town site itself cannot continue to grow exponentially forever. I think everybody accepts that. Once you accept that and you describe some limits, then obviously not the impacts but perhaps the benefits of those limits start to accrue elsewhere - in this case probably in Canmore and so on. So it is important that those communities somehow be involved in the dialogue.

The only concern I'm aware of in consultation was the need to provide some mechanism or assurance that the discussions that took place about Banff Park, which is national lands, were married to some type of discussion with the provincial government, because most of the lands immediately outside are not even private, they're provincial. What has been worked out there is something at the officials level to ensure there's coordination and so on. For constitutional reasons, I believe there are reasons why the Alberta government will not choose formally to enter into a dialogue with the federal government about what are in fact constitutionally their rights to determine those uses on their land.

But that having been said, the fact is that there is a very strong spirit of cooperation and openness.

Mr. Abbott: I'd like to challenge you politely on the word ``consultation'' when you said there's extensive ongoing consultation over fees. I have had people in private industry and in the towns surrounding parks suggest to me the word ``consultation'' has a different meaning with Parks Canada from its Webster's dictionary meaning. I wonder if you want to comment on that. I don't think there's a sense on the part of the people who have approached me in my role as heritage critic for my party that there has been adequate consultation.

Mr. Lee: There will always be individuals who will claim, and with some justification, that there hasn't been consultation. If we're dealing with the tour bus community, can I guarantee you that we have managed to capture every tour bus operator, not missed one of them? I can't. But I can tell you the tour bus operators have been involved - and I'm using them just as an example - in very extensive consultation. They were alerted over a year ago to the fact that we would be making fee changes. Fee changes went out to them before the decision was made. Feedback was received.

I would say - and we'll go to the dictionary definition of ``consultation'' - we have a very fine record of complying with the dictionary definition. When we are wrong, we make a correction.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien: I have a number of questions. I'm a bit confused about the management of new sites and just where the private sector might tie into there, if anywhere. Can you clarify how the private sector is involved, if at all, in managing new sites or in managing parks? Is the management of our parks going to be in federal and provincial hands, or is there a role for the private sector?

Mr. Lee: The management of national parks will always be in federal hands. There is a role for the private sector, but it isn't as the manager of the park. The manager of the park is the people of Canada, and the best that Parks Canada can do on behalf of the people of Canada. That's where the management lies.

But the private sector is already involved in a variety of ways throughout the parks system. We don't run accommodation services. A long time ago Parks Canada used to run the lodge. We don't run lodges any more.

There's a set of activities.... In some parks we cut the grass and in some other parks the private sector cuts the grass. There's a whole range there.

.1235

Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate that. Thank you.

On the greening of government, I'm a bit confused about how your department ties into that, about why that wouldn't fall under the environment department. Is there some sort of interface here, or what's the situation?

Mr. Lee: That's right, and basically we do follow the environment department's lead. All we were saying here is that within the Department of Canadian Heritage, in which there are other programs, Parks Canada takes a lead on behalf of the department.

As an example of the greening of government that we're involved in, take the conversion to cleaner fuels in automobiles. We have a major fleet, obviously. Environment sets the direction and then we say we will move as quickly as we can to reduce emissions from gasoline, and so forth.

Mr. O'Brien: So the lead on greening of government comes from the Environment.

Mr. Lee: Yes.

Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Lee, you mentioned the challenge of having increasing numbers of visitors to our parks. I mentioned this the other day, and I think it's something we need to do as government - encourage Canadians to visit other regions of the country more, Quebeckers to visit other parts of the country more, people outside Quebec to go and visit Quebec more. Is there something in your long-term plan to try to facilitate that?

Mr. Lee: Yes, and it isn't done just in the context of Ontario or Quebec; I'd call it Canadians getting to know Canada and getting to know other Canadians.

Mr. O'Brien: That's exactly what I meant.

Mr. Lee: As I indicated, we're actively involved with the Canadian Tourism Commission. We were a major contributor to the domestic marketing program of the Tourism Commission last year in terms of the theme of ``stay home and visit our fellow Canadians''.

We also have a variety of focuses that are more specific than that. Last year we ran a major, major program on the celebration of the anniversary of Louisbourg. Another activity is promoting the Acadian culture in New Brunswick and attracting other Canadians to visit and explore those communities and cultures. So yes, there are a variety of activities.

Mr. O'Brien: I don't know if I have time left, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: You have another 30 seconds.

Mr. O'Brien: Then let me use it for a commercial. I will have some more questions later, I hope. I think we should be buying the Montreal Forum and making it into some sort of national historic site. I'm not just saying that facetiously, even though I'm a lifetime Montreal Canadiens fan. I don't know if that's practical with budget constraints, but if there is any more historic building in this country, I want to know where it is. Thank you.

Mr. Lee: Toronto would say Maple Leaf Gardens.

Mr. O'Brien: Oh no. They don't play hockey in Toronto.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, there are several questions I would like to ask, but I'm going to do what I can in the five minutes available to me. I shall follow the approach of my colleague, that is ask my questions and then wait for the answers.

[English]

First, Mr. Lee, I thank you for being here.

What expenditure reduction in terms of money is the section of the department that you have responsibility for intending on saving annually by 1999-2000.

Mr. Lee: The total reduction would be $98 million. With the figures you have there are some rounding things that don't quite match, but it's $98 million.

Mr. Bélanger: That's the number you're not getting.

Mr. Lee: From the base, okay. We will keep the additional revenues, which will go from $35 million to $70 million. So $98 million minus $35 million is $63 million.

Mr. Bélanger: $63 million. That is what the department will save in terms of all the cost reductions -

Mr. Lee: That I'm going through.

Mr. Bélanger: How then is the department planning to fund new acquisitions and new parks - further reductions?

Mr. Lee: No, they're funded within that.

.1240

Basically, what we've done in the business plan is to go through our entire operations from top to bottom. Obviously, we've decided to do some things differently. There are some savings. As we did that, we reallocated into our priority investment areas.

Obviously, the government said that one of the priority investment areas is new parks and sites. So basically, within that program the investment in new parks and sites has changed from a base of about $14 million to roughly $28 million per year. In realigning our expenditures with government priorities, we moved the investment in new parks and sites from -

Mr. Bélanger: Where does this new funding come from? Which other areas receive less?

Mr. Lee: You can't relate it directly, because I didn't say that I'm getting out of camping and going into new parks; I said I'm going to do a whole bunch of things differently, make a bunch of savings, then decide where am I going to make my -

Mr. Bélanger: My understanding is that if you get $98 million less in annual funding by that time, and you have $35 million more in revenues, that's $69 million that you'll have to cut. Therefore, you'll be cutting essentially another $14 million somewhere to redirect it.

Mr. Lee: I don't relate quite to the other $14 million.

Mr. Bélanger: You've gone from $14 million to $28 million for new parks.

Mr. Lee: Okay.

Mr. Bélanger: So there's a rejigging internally, on top of all of this, of another $14 million?

Mr. Lee: That's right. To put it more simply, I had to cut some things deeper in order to make some investments over here.

Mr. Bélanger: I understand. I just wanted numbers.

Mr. Lee: Exactly.

Mr. Bélanger: If the government had not forced this re-examination by virtue of decreasing the allocations, would this have occurred anyhow?

Mr. Lee: I would like to think, as a public servant, that I would run the most efficient operation I could every day. But the fact is that you do need a certain environment to get change. I would love to have been able to do it by myself, but I couldn't. You need the environment to get change. We have been getting the changes we need to make this thing.

Mr. Bélanger: What happens if the projected incomes don't materialize? I'll give you one case in point: the Trent-Severn canal system. Perhaps you are familiar with this. I know some colleagues of mine are not happy.

Mr. Lee: You knew where I was before I came here?

Mr. Bélanger: I knew you were meeting with some colleagues today; I didn't know what time.

They are not happy with the fact that an increase in fees, or new fees, were essentially announced without much lead time. There's a suspicion that some of the expected revenues may not materialize. If that is the case, what are your alternatives?

Mr. Lee: I can say this, as Mr. Abbott has left now. We don't always, although we do try, meet the dictionary definition of ``consultation''. We didn't carry out a very good consultation here.

Mr. Bélanger: We recognize that.

Mr. Lee: We're going to make corrections. It will result in some good changes in fees. We will get a little bit less revenue for sure, so we'll have to redo some operations or we may get some revenue someplace else.

Mr. Bélanger: You're open to a phasing in as opposed to -

Mr. Lee: Absolutely.

Mr. Bélanger: I have a final question. It's probably all the time I have. I don't expect an answer, but perhaps at some point we could meet, Mr. Lee. I would like to know, on a more local basis, how the relationship between Parks Canada, the National Capital Commission, the Rideau Canal and all of that will mesh under this new agency. There's been a growing concern on that.

Mr. Lee: Let's meet on that over the next couple of months.

Mr. Bélanger: I'd appreciate that.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you have any other questions, Mr. Leroux?

Mr. Leroux: No. If Mr. Bélanger wishes to ask any others...

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, we have time if you wish to continue. Do you wish to continue or are you satisfied with the answers obtained so far?

Mr. Bélanger: Perhaps we could deal with the question of the Canal immediately.

[English]

Maybe you can mention what you are looking at in terms of the relationship with the NCC as it pertains to the Rideau Canal, or the whole canal from Kingston to here. This is also a rather significant area.

Mr. Lee: With regard to the idea of a Parks Canada agency and a national capital agency relationship, I haven't looked at that yet.

.1245

My understanding is that, at the current time, within the national capital region, we have a good working relationship with the national capital. We share services, and some of us do this and some of us do that. I have asked at that level nonetheless - this was at a meeting with the commission and with my staff about three months ago - that they should review even what they're doing now and just make sure that we've got it right. So that is occurring.

Take the canals. This applies to the Rideau-Trent-Severn system. I'm offering my views on this. This is one of the great canal systems of the world. It's historic and cultural. It's beautiful. For one reason or another - I have not personally been able to put my finger on it - the national and international significance of these areas is not known.

We have what has been a declining - perhaps it's stable now - user base. We should be having growth, but we're not getting it. So the challenge that I think we have - it's not just us, but the community, tourism associations, businessmen, and people interested in heritage - is to somehow get our act together so that these places can be enjoyed by more Canadians in a positive way and by the international community, because these are strong enough attractions to bring international people. We should try to increase the growth and the contribution these places make to the local economy.

So that's what I would like to see. I'll talk to anybody who tells me how to do it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

I have two requests. Mr. O'Brien had asked for a short question. If the members agree, I'd like to give a chance to Mr. Taylor, who has been very good about coming to our committee and being very patient.

Mr. O'Brien, a quick question, then I'll turn it over to Mr. Taylor.

Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Lee, this is just on the part by which you are going to move from a department to an agency. Is that what I understand? If that's correct, can you summarize the ramifications of that? How will that improve your situation?

Mr. Lee: Just a point of clarification. We're doing something different: we're not moving from a department to an agency; we are going to be within the department but have something equivalent to agency powers and authorities so we can get on with our job.

Mr. O'Brien: I see.

Mr. Lee: It is very important for the parks program to remain as part of the portfolio of the Department of Canadian Heritage, because we have to work together. Parks can't be going here and somebody else going here. So that relationship will be maintained.

What we're talking about is simplifying the day-to-day relationship and not have big departmental structures to try to carry out business. There would be leaner structures, quicker decisions, more thoughtful and directed investment, more care of public funds and so on.

Mr. O'Brien: So you're going to streamline the bureaucracy - this is what I hear you saying - without changing the official status or nomenclature.

Mr. Lee: No. I would see that the Parks Canada name should remain. It's a nationally known brand name and symbol of quality. It should stay.

Mr. O'Brien: Right.

Mr. Lee: While we are national parks and historic sites, we are part of the general heritage framework for Canada, and we need to continue to function within that for all kinds of reasons, not just reduction. As a good public agency, we need to find ways to reduce costs, become more efficient, and at the same time maintain quality service. The other point that is important to make here is that while doing so there be no change in the mandate of the agency or Parks Canada. Its objective, which is to provide for the enjoyment of Canadians and to protect these areas and leave them unimpaired, is very important to create that next generation of parks and sites for tomorrow.

.1250

Mr. O'Brien: Thank you very much.

I certainly think Mr. Taylor should get some time too, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Taylor (The Battlefords - Meadow Lake): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the indulgence of the committee and your hospitality here today, and I thank the members of the committee for extending some time to me.

I appreciate the witness's attendance here today. This is an important subject. A lot of change is happening and I think it is important that we as members of Parliament have the opportunity to examine the proposals in as detailed a way as possible.

I am somewhat of a skeptic concerning Parks Canada's proposals. I'm greatly supportive of the development and expansion plans of Parks Canada. I believe this is a very important part of what we do as a government, and I think the development of existing sites and the creation of new ones is critical for the future of Canada.

However, I think you will remember, although you weren't in the department at the time, that in 1985 Parks Canada came to northwest Saskatchewan and held a huge news conference to talk about development plans for Fort Battleford historic park. No sooner had Parks Canada people left the site than the development plan started to be whittled down, and today, ten years later, there's absolutely no evidence at all that those development plans were even considered, let alone executed.

Development plans are critical in terms of moving forward, but the department has to attack these things seriously and commit the resources necessary to ensure that the follow-up occurs.

I am quite concerned about the privatization plans of some of the services. You said earlier that they're not privatization, but I don't see how they can be considered anything else. I want to ask a couple of questions relating to that.

First, during your presentation you talked about the program review part II affecting 1,100 full-time equivalents, or 1,500 to 2,000 positions. In your summary of your comments today you talked about an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 employees about to be provided with opportunities for creating their own companies. Is there any relationship between the 1,500 to 2,000 employees mentioned in the reductions and the 1,500 to 2,000 employees mentioned in the opportunities package?

Mr. Lee: Your first point, as I understood it, was support for the Parks Canada program and the need to follow through with investments in cases like that of North Battleford. As you know, I wasn't here at the time, and I'm not too sure what happened. It clearly isn't possible for us to carry on full-scale investment all the time, and we have been reducing; there's absolutely no doubt about that. I'm not aware of the particular issue, so I won't comment on it. Clearly, we are still investing in new parks and new sites, as demonstrated in my presentation. Why something went wrong in this particular case, I don't know.

I have a point of clarification on the privatization question. I think it's very important in communicating with the Canadian public and among ourselves that when you use the term ``privatization of parks'' broadly, some people in the public panic and think that somehow their heritage or their resource, which they asked the government to take care of, is being turned over to a private manager who may have all kinds of different objectives. The point I'm making is that is not happening and it's not going to happen.

On the other hand, if you ask whether federal employees or private contractors will be be cutting more grass in the future, I would say that private contractors will be cutting more grass. So that is the context of the private issue.

I think there was a third point, Mr. Taylor, but I may have missed it.

Mr. Taylor: I was simply asking about -

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Taylor. Could we close on this as your last question? There are a few housekeeping chores to take care of.

.1255

Mr. Taylor: Okay. I'll put it in two parts, and I think they can be quick answers.

The program review acknowledgement was 1,500 to 2,000 jobs to be reduced. The expected number of people provided with opportunities to create their own jobs is an identical number: 1,500 to 2,000. Are the current employees falling under the reduction plan expected to take up those opportunities that are being presented, and if so, what studies have been done to indicate what cost savings will be achieved by doing that?

Two, what studies have been done of other sectors to indicate this is successful, particularly some of the privatization that's occurred within the provincial parks systems, where the provincial parks have turned over the operations of campgrounds to private sector operators or municipalities? How many of those have been successful? I think you'll find it's very few.

Mr. Lee: I think the 1,500 issue can be cleared up. We have indicated there could be in the order of 1,500 to 2,000 employees who might participate in an employee takeover type of program. That is an estimate, because it is a two-way street. What do employees want to do, what would they like to do? How many of them might choose? We will have to work within that context.

As we go through the employee proposals, we will be looking for savings. The order of magnitude of savings we're looking for is something in the order of $12 million to $14 million as we move through the program.

In terms of ``studies'', we have our own experience to drawn upon. As I indicated, we already use a variety of services. We have our own evidence that there are certain services that are provided more cheaply in a different way. As indicated earlier, as we go through employee proposals, if it ends up that the federal government can do it cheaper, we will do it. That would only make sense.

There are examples of successes and non-successes in privatization, employee takeovers or different styles of operation. Among what I would include as successes is what British Columbia did with regard to the management of their parks and campgrounds in the 1980s.

The Chairman: Mr. Lee, can you give us some time? It's nearly 1 o'clock. I'm sorry to cut you off, but time is pressing and I think members have work to go to.

Thank you very much for your appearance, Mr. Lee, and for all your answers.

Mr. Lee: Thank you.

The Chairman: If members could stay for just a minute, I have a few housekeeping chores to take care of.

[Translation]

Next week, on March 26, we shall hear from Mr. Roger Collet, Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Canadian Identity. On March 28, our witness is Mr. Victor Rabinovitch, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Development and Heritage.

[English]

cultural development and heritage, which is the CBC and all that.

Ms Fry agreed to postpone from last week so that we finish with the ministry, and she will appear April 18. We are hoping to have the next meeting with Ms Copps, the minister, who will give us a round-up of the objectives of her ministry and how she sees budget provisions and spending the moneys and so forth - a general outline so we know where the ministry is going.

[Translation]

The next meeting will be held with the CRTC.

[English]

We'll have one full session with the CRTC.

.1300

[Translation]

The Committee Clerk: The dates have not yet been confirmed.

Mr. Leroux: Dates are not confirmed.

The Chairman: Dates are not confirmed, but I can give you an idea of the sequence. On the 18th of April, we will hear Ms Fry. Then, count every Tuesday and every Thursday. We hope to hear Ms Copps on the following Tuesday and then the CRTC. You can count every Tuesday and every Thursday, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. Leroux: Following a logical sequence.

The Chairman: Following a logical sequence, and after the CRTC, we hope to hear the four main museums, two at a time.

[English]

In other words, we'll have one session with two museums and the next one with two museums, and each one of them, the CRTC and the four museums, will have to discuss their budget provisions for the coming year plus their objectives and mandate.

That would bring us, if we manage to follow the sequence, to May 2. I wouldn't like to go any further because of the copyright legislation. If by any chance we are asked to move the copyright legislation further along, then we'll have to cut one of the institutions off and start again in the future.

[Translation]

It gives you some idea of what we intend to do. If by any chance Ms Copps could not be here on the set date, we will let you know as soon as possible, as soon as a new date will have been set. But I think that as regards Ms Fry, we can consider that she will be here on the 18th of April.

Mr. Leroux: But we agree on the objective of trying to hear Ms Copps at least in April.

The Chairman: Yes, as soon as possible.

Mr. Leroux: Agreed.

The Chairman: We will call Ms Copps as soon as possible after the recess.

Mr. Leroux: Excellent. In May, if the copyright legislation upsets the timetable, then, we will see.

The Chairman: Exactly. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page